Dismissed

Midhun Suresh M. v. State Bank of India

Kerala HC7 Aug 2020WP(C)/9577/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his termination as an Acquisition Relationship Manager and the cancellation of his appointment as Relationship Manager. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the termination valid under contract terms and the cancellation valid due to lack of acceptance of the offer letter.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no interference with the order of termination and cancellation of appointment was granted.

Midhun Suresh M. Vs State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MIDHUN SURESH M., AGED 31 YEARS SON OF SURESH.M.T. , ACQUISITION RELATIONSHIP MANAGER, P.F.NO.8354758, STATE BANK OF INDIA, WEALTH HUB, CATHOLIC CENTRE, ALUVA -683 101, RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 587

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶11

2 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (WEALTH MANAGEMENT) STATE BANK OF INDIA, WEALTH MANAGEMENT BUSINESS UNIT, CORPORATE CENTRE, 10TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HIRC), STATE BANK OF INDIA, WEALTH MANAGEMENT BUSINESS UNIT, CORPORATE CENTRE, 10TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR-LATERAL), STATE BANK OF INDIA, WEALTH MANAGEMENT BUSINESS UNIT, CORPORATE CENTRE, 10TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶14

5 THE CIRCLE HEAD, STATE BANK OF INDIA, WEALTH MANAGEMENT HUB, TC 9/2136, FIRST FLOOR, SOUPARNIKA, TOWER, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.) BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Termination of the services of the petitioner

¶21

from the post of Acquisition Relationship Manager and the appellate order Ext.P19 affirming his termination are under challenge in this writ petition. Petitioner also challenges the cancellation of his appointment as Relationship Manager.

¶22

On the basis of Ext.P1 notification issued by

¶23

the State Bank of India, petitioner submitted his application for appointment as Acquisition Relationship Manager in Wealth Management. On the basis of selection conducted thereafter, petitioner was issued Ext.P2 offer on 04.07.2016 for engagement as Acquisition Relationship Manager on contract basis for a period of 5 years including probation period of one year. Separate terms and conditions were also annexed to the said offer. In Clause 2 of the said order, it was provided that his engagement in the Bank would be purely contractual in nature; his engagement would be terminated at any time by the Bank without

¶24

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶25

¶26

assigning any reasons, by giving three months notice/three months' compensation for payment. It was also stated that on fulfillment of conditions stipulated by the Bank, his services may also be engaged afresh on contract basis at the sole discretion of the Bank, at the end of the contract. Petitioner points out that as per Clause 5.4, it was provided that variable pay would be paid on a semi annual basis on the basis of performance evaluation. Along with the offer of appointment a copy of the contract rules as well as the terms and conditions of engagement of officers engaged on contract basis (Ext.P4), was also forwarded. Petitioner accepted the offer and joined the post. While working so, he received Ext.P3 notice dated 27.01.2020 informing him that his services were no longer required and his services would stand terminated on 30.04.2020 on expiry of 3 months notice period/3 months compensation under Clause 22.1 of the terms and conditions in Ext.P4. Petitioner thereupon approached this Court

¶27

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶28

¶29

filing W.P.(C).No.7138 of 2020, pointing out that he has already submitted Ext.P12 representation before the 1^st respondent requesting to revoke the notice of termination. The writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P14 judgment dated 23.03.2020 directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation, after affording him an opportunity of hearing before orders are passed pursuant to the notice of termination. Thereafter 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P19 order rejecting his representation. It was stated that the performance of the petitioner for the period from 24.10.2016 to 30.09.2019 was very poor and

¶30

was not up to the expectations of the Bank. The performance of the petitioner as evaluated for the period from March 2016 to September 2019 was also given in the said order according to which the rating was 1 in the scale of 1 to 5.

¶31

Petitioner had raised another grievance also as he was given an offer of appointment as Relationship Manager, in the meanwhile, pursuant to

¶32

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶33

¶34

application submitted on the basis of Ext.R1(h) notification issued on 23.05.2019. As per Ext.P8 letter dated 25.11.2019 petitioner was offered engagement as Relationship Manager on contract basis for a period of 5 years. It was stated that his initial place of posting would be at Bombay and he would be liable to be transferred to any branch/office of the Bank in exigency of service. It was also stated that request for posting/transfer to a specific place/office/circle may not be entertained.

¶35

Petitioner was asked to send the scanned copy of acceptance of the letter duly filled in latest by 13.12.2019. It was stated that in case he failed to do so, it would be presumed that he was not interested in joining the Bank and the offer would be treated as withdrawn and he would not have any right to be engaged in the Bank. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P8 offer petitioner submitted Ext.P9 representation requesting for posting at Cochin, pointing out that he

¶36

along with his wife was undergoing infertility

¶37

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶38

treatment for the last 3 years and it would be difficult for him to manage a posting at Bombay in those circumstances.

¶39

4. Petitioner stated that the notice of

¶40

termination Ext.P3 was issued immediately after Ext.P9 representation. Now that the petitioner’s services as Acquisition Relationship Manager is terminated and the

¶41

offer for engagement as Relationship Manager is also cancelled. The writ petition is filed at this stage challenging the termination notice Ext.P3 as well as Ext.P19 order affirming the action, alleging that the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner points out that he was never informed of the performance rating or that he did not achieve the required target.

¶42

Respondents have filed a counter affidavit as

¶43

well as a petition for vacating the interim order. In the counter affidavit respondents stated that under

¶44

Clause 22.2 of Ext.P4 terms and conditions of

¶45

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶46

¶47

engagement of officers engaged on contract basis which was furnished to the petitioner along with the offer of his appointment it was specifically made clear that petitioner’s engagement would be terminated on three months' notice/three months' compensation without assigning any reason. More over it is also pointed out that Ext.P6 performance evaluation report for the year ended March 2019 was furnished to the petitioner on 25.07.2019 by which petitioner was specifically informed that his rating was 1.05 and 1.11 whereas the minimum rating required was 1.2. It was stated that his performance rating for both the half years were below the minimum rating of both and it was a matter of concern and that they were implementing a performance improvement plan with immediate effect in order to assess him in meeting performance standards going forward for a period upto 30.09.2019. By this petitioner was to achieve PIP bench mark during the PIP period April 2019 to September 2019 as given in

¶48

the annexure. It is stated that even after the PIP

¶49

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶50

¶51

petitioner did not improve and therefore it became necessary to terminate his services.

¶52

Regarding his appointment as Relationship Manager it is stated that even in the notification Ext.R1(h) as well as the offer of appointment as Relationship Manager it was specifically stated that any request for transfer/change of posting would not be entertained. Moreover petitioner did not furnish the required documents in acceptance of his offer letter apart from submitting representations requesting for change of place of posting. It is therefore their contention that petitioner’s services were terminated in accordance with law. It is also stated that Ext.P19 order was passed after considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶53

Heard Sri. Ashok Shenoy and Girish, the

¶54

learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Amal George, learned Counsel for the Bank. Even though petitioner has stated that the termination of service

¶55

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶56

¶57

was ordered without complying with the principles of natural justice and it is harsh and without furnishing reasons for the termination, it is seen that even at the stage of offer of appointment petitioner was informed about clause 22.2 of Ext.P4 conditions of service, which provided for termination of service without assigning any reason on three months' notice. Petitioner has not challenged the said provision Clause 22.2.

¶58

The contention of the petitioner that he came

¶59

to know about the reason regarding his poor performance or non achievement of performance only from Ext.P19 order cannot also be accepted in the light of Ext.P6 evaluation report based on which he was subjected to PIP. Petitioner’s contention that Ext.P19 order casts a stigma on his career cannot also be accepted as the order of termination Ext.P3 does not refer to any such reason.

¶60

Even though petitioner submitted that his

¶61

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶62

¶63

representations were not considered before or after the cancellation of appointment as Relationship Manager, petitioner does not have a case that he had submitted any letter accepting the offer pursuant to Ext.P8.

¶64

Yet another contention raised by the

¶65

petitioner is that the process of evaluation was not correct and the respondents have not so far given him any reply on that. However the Bank has explained the rating given to him. Petitioner has not produced any material to show the manner in which evaluation is to be conducted. At any rate this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate on that issue.

¶66

In these circumstances the orders impugned do not warrant any interference.

¶67

Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶68

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶69

¶70

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶71

¶72

APPENDIX

¶73

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶74

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT NO.CRPD/SCO-VM/2015-16/10 DATED 16.03.216 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶75

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NB/WM/PN/2016-17/133 DATED 4.7.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶76

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TERMINATION NOTICE NO WMBU/HR/BR/219-20/991 DATED 27.1.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF TERMS AND CONDITION OF ENGAGEMENT OF OFFICERS ENGAGED ON CONTRACT BASIS ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT

¶77

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09.08.2019 ISSUED BY SERVICE MANAGER OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.WMBU/HR/PIP BR/2019-20/368 DATED 25.07.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶78

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 5TH RESPONDENT

¶79

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.WMBU/HR/ORK/2019-20/1044 DATED 25.11.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶80

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED BY DR.SABINE S.,

¶81

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶82

¶83

SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD., TO PETITIONERS WIFE SILPA RAJAN

¶84

EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OF THE EMAIL DATED 5.2.2020 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER WITH TRAILING MAILS THEREUNDER
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL DATED 15.02.2020 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2020 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P(C) 7138 OF 2020
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06.04.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH READBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16.04.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH READBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF E-MAIL DATED 18.04.2020 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH E-MAIL DATED 17.04.2020 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER, ATTACHED THEREWITH, AS TRAILING MAIL
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.WMBUR/HR/2020- 21/BR-50 DATED 21.04.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER, ALONG WITH READBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.04.2020 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P12 REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER, ALONG WITH READBLE COPY
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF LETTER -D.O.NO.M- 11011/2020/MEDIA DATED 20.3.2020 ISSUED TO ALL EMPLOYEE'S ASSOCIATIONS

¶85

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶86

¶87

BY JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI

¶88

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF LETTER-D.O.NO.M11011/08/2020/MEDIA DATED 20.3.2020 ISSUED TO SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, CGO COMPLEX, BLOCK NO.14, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI

¶89

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶90

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFER LETTER DATED 04/07/2016 WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶91

EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT OF OFFICERS ENGAGED ON CONTRACT BASIS WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶92

EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGED COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION DATED 27/01/2020.

¶93

EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/08/2018 SENT BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER INTIMATING THE PARAMETERS FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PAYMENT OF PERFORMANCE LINKED PAY.

¶94

EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BY EMAIL DATED 27/01/2020.

¶95

EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17/04/2020.

¶96

EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14/05/2020.

¶97

EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO. CRPD/SCO-WEALTH/2019-20/06 DATED 23/05/2019.

¶98

EXHIBIT R1(I) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04/12/2019.

¶99

WP(C).No.9577 OF 2020(V)

¶100

¶101

EXHIBIT R1(J) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK BY EMAIL ON 18/02/2020 AT 11.12 AM. EXHIBIT R1(K) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SPEED POST CONSIGNMENT REGISTRATION NO.RL473246782IN SENT ON 26/02/2020 AT 10.18.35 AM FROM ALUVA HO.

Midhun Suresh M. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midhun Suresh M. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Thomas College of Engineering and Technology Vs the State of Keala

Binu K. Sam, Vs the State of Kerala

Benny.M.P. Vs Secretary to Government

The Managing Director Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Sajesh E.B Vs Kerla State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

The Corporate Manager Vs the Secretary to Government